Interestingly, the issue is not simply that extroverted people don't appear to listen to others, it's that when they do listen to others, the speaker assumes that they are simply good at pretending they are listening.
> Furthermore, interaction partners assume that extraversion is positively associated with a greater ability to modify one’s self-presentation.
It seems like a can't-win situation for any extroverted people who are actually good listeners.
This isn’t always the case, but sometimes I find myself naturally skeptical of people who seem overly interested in what’s going on in my life and overwhelming positive and complimentary of anything I mention - as if the nicer someone is the more I perceive their kindness to be BS. I’ve had to focus on suppressing this inclination to see the genuine good in others at times.
One, it's unexpected that someone seems to actually be interested in you. This may be projection as well, of course, because I am not actually interested in most people. People ask "How's your weekend been?" to me, but I don't ask that of others myself - one, I don't care, and two, how someone else spends their spare time is none of my business.
And two, it's awareness of these interpersonal techniques (e.g. Carnegie's book) to make friends, influence people, and sell them something - in other words, ulterior motives instead of genuine interest. Building rapport. It feels like an act.
Three, hopefully an edge case, I knew one guy who made it really overt that he only asked you how your day / weekend was so he could talk about his. I wasn't playing because I thought he was a prick, and I didn't care about his weekend, and was uncomfortable talking about my spare time, especially because there was no genuine interest but instead a segue into boasting.
> Ut recitem tibi nostra rogas epigrammata. Nolo. Non audire, Celer, sed recitare cupis.
> You ask that I recite to you my epigrams. I refuse: you don't want to listen, Celer, but to recite your own.
---
It's not the same, but a similar thing I want to mention in case reading the parent comment makes awkward people feel awkward about asking people about their days in case it's perceived as mercenary: I have a friend who is a bit ADHD-ish, and gets caught up with his own interests. I greatly enjoy talking to him regardless, but I know when he stops himself and asks me about what's going on in my life that's a very conscious decision on his part - and I appreciate it all the more for that.
> This may be projection as well, of course, because I am not actually interested in most people.
Bingo. Not everyone is interested in medieval history, but some are fascinated by it. Some people don't care about the specifics of their friends'/colleagues' weekends, others are genuinely curious. To each their own.
And, yeah, some people are just socially engineering or, or just waiting for their turn to talk (John Mulaney has a funny bit about that)... but it's not all of us, I promise. And I think those people are fairly likely to identify themselves via other adjacent failings of character.
On several occasions I've found myself taken aback when someone asked me a deep/attentive question about myself. There are only a few people in my life that I actually care enough to hear their answers to those of questions, and I assume they are the same way.
Sometimes those people creep me out and sometimes it forms a lasting bond. But I fully understand what you mean when you say you perceive it as BS. It just sets off alarm bells and makes my brain pay way more attention to decide whether they are being genuine or not (and if they are, to find out why the apparent bond is so asymmetrical).
<< I've found myself taken aback when someone asked me a deep/attentive question about myself.
I guess it really depends on how 'deep' the question is. If it is the 'how are your kids/how was your weekend?', I typically play along, because people expect a performance art ( or at least did pre-covid ). I might even make something up if I feel frisky.
But I don't really recall an adult asking me deep/attentive questions during work hours ( sadly, it is not a joke; my in-office interactions were highly scripted ).
Still, you made me think about the 'deep/attentive' questions from others. A decade or so ago, co-worker brought his kids to work. One kid was brutal and his questions made me re-evaluate some of my basic assumptions about my work/life balance.
edit: Obviously, I have no idea how I would have reacted if an adult stranger asked me the same questions.
> I find myself naturally skeptical of people who seem overly interested in what’s going on in my life and overwhelming positive and complimentary of anything I mention
Yep, as an INTJ, I find myself often repeating pertinent points because I dont see any lights-going-on moment in their faces, the negative for me is that I've been labelled by some as having dementia for repeating myself! I just dont see people reacting to the significance of some of the things I've said to them though and thats worrying when its authority type figures.
Classic example, kidney disease test uses creatinine as an indicator of estimated Glomular Filtration Rate (eGFR test). Things that elevate creatine and its breakdown product creatinine, is vitamin D and creatine body building supplementation. Vets and GP's use these creatinine tests to prescribe a whole host of drugs and treatments yet the lab test cant quantify and account for the Vit D and Creatine supplementation. My vet was surprised I give my dog creatine, but about 30% can be destroyed by heat and the raw diet makes huskies perform better by about 20%, ergo creatine supplement for dogs on cooked food can help get them closer to what they would have had on a raw diet.
Even GP's dont ask if someone is doing creatine supplementation at least on the NHS here in the UK. For the record you need to two weeks off Creatine supplementation for the lab test to become accurate and longer like at least 8-12 weeks for Vit D (Vit D has a 4 week half life) to get out of your system before arriving at a more accurate creatinine lab test. If GP doesn't ask the right questions, they could put your through unnecessary treatments which is a waste for taxpayers and the patient.
Ffs. This is s exactly their point. You're seven steps behind the game. The point is that if you don't ask the right questions, the 'ah ha' moment one would need to realize they will be defeated by using a standard testing technique because there is extra context that you, the General Practitioner are unaware of.
Then instead of sitting down and engaging a few brain cells on abstract thinking, you blame the poster for having Aspberger's because you can't make the topical leap.
This happens all the time in topics where one can actually be bothered to accrue significant knowledge, in my experience.
I didn't have a problem following them [AFAICT, there's nothing particularly complicated about the subject], to me the content structure lacks hierarchy that others naturally apply; rather like unintentionally burying the lede. Their point seemed like it was 'left as an exercise for the reader' -- fine if they intended that style is prose.
I didn't blame the GP; friends who have conversed with me in that manner (only 2) have had diagnoses of Asperger's [which is why I chose that term over ASD].
FWIW there were several interesting things in the comment, and I'm glad they made it.
I can relate (sort of). I got a blood test shortly after a night of heavy drinking, and ended up getting an (unnecessary) ultrasound because of my creatinine levels!
I can also relate to feeling as though people are not getting what I'm saying. I really wish more people were active listeners, but it's one of those things you can't really ask someone else to do gracefully.
I feel like the best you can do is make sure you've designed your sentence so that the full impact gets through. Example, telling my doctor that I was an 8 or 9 out of 10 in pain was met with shrugs. Saying that I was woken at night with waves of pain that felt like I was being stabbed with a knife got their attention.
> I feel like the best you can do is make sure you've designed your sentence so that the full impact gets through
There's no emotion in text or little anyway and some people I think are more focused on their surroundings or body language, beside text (sight) is the fastest input into the brain.
>I feel like the best you can do is make sure you've designed your sentence so that the full impact gets through
And this is another point, GP's dont do a saliva test to see how high our cortisol/adrenaline levels are so someone in a high stressed situation wont feel pain like someone who is relaxed so then if the GP/paramedic asks the question of "1-10 10 being most painful how painful is something?", they have failed by not measuring the circulating levels of cortisol and adrenaline which is masking the pain level the brain is trying to convey to the GP.
Put another way, you go to the dentist and have a filling, the dentist injects whatever to numb the pain but some patients need more than they amount/kg. Why is this? Do they have a healthy liver which metabolises the drug faster, better blood circulation, higher levels of bilirubin or high levels of manganese which improves the nervous system?
So many variables to factor into a single or double ml shot of painkiller!
I was talking about spoken sentences. Yes, I design sentences for use in important conversations, and I have no idea if that is weird or not. :)
But yes, great point on body language. My saying 9 calmly through gritted teeth was received differently from my gesticulated comment on waves of pain..
My one data point; the one ex-friend I had that was really encouraging/interested in things I talked about (at first) turned out to be a borderline sociopath and I had to end the friendship.
I've had similar experiences. I find some people use attention and the doling out of validation to establish control and eventually manipulation. They don't have to be sociopaths, even average narcissists often play such games.
It's very counter intuitive to question someone's motives when their external presentation is so disarming. Undoubtedly this keeps you from some genuine relationships as well though.
It is a gamble. The question typically boils down to whether you are willing to gamble. I mean.. it is genuinely harder to make 'real' friends as you grow older. As a kid, there is no question of ulterior motives, because they are in the open. He has a console and a new game I want to play. We are best friends now.
I'm going to offer a hot take just for the sake of consideration, which is that at some level, for many things in a relationship, it doesn't matter if someone is actually a good listener, it is whether or not they are perceived to be a good listener that matters. That is, part of "being a good listener" is that the person being listened to feels listened to.
This doesn't mean anyone who is extroverted can't be a good listener, regardless of how you define it, but it does suggest that whatever this pattern is in the paper, it's the thing that matters most?
Yeah related to this: another interpretation of this paper's findings could be that what's important is not listening per se, merely putting the other person's interests above your own. For example, if I hear and remember every word you say but am still very adamant about putting in my two cents for ego reasons, then yes, I did listen but I'm still putting myself first.
So I agree with you in the sense that merely letting the other person speak and giving them enough attention to appear like you're listening is still putting their interests first. Though, if you're already there, why not actually listen? Or if you really don't want to listen, sounds like not a great relationship...
Really depends on your relationship and their expectations IMO.
If you don't lord it over them you can generally get away with being pretty blunt. Judge but give no consequence otherwise. Like, you were definitely the assole here or wrong to do that but I feel ya.
I think this is very dependent on context. For example, if we both know this is a one-off interaction and we're unlikely to see each other again, then it's good manners to give a shallow illusion of attentiveness, and use just enough mental energy to handle the interaction appropriately. On the other hand, if we have an ongoing connection, then I think it's pretty shitty to be dishonest about how much attention you're giving the conversation.
It's even OK with me to switch from the first strategy to the second mid-conversation if the situation changes, with something like "Sorry, I was on autopilot for a minute. I think I'm following now."
That's only true for superficial relationships. For anything deeper - friendship, relationship, parental relationship, even a deeper professional relationship - it's important that the other person hears, understands, and remembers what you say. Because it may well be important later.
Obviously no one expects perfect recall, especially of conversations from some time ago. But active listening and remembering are important in building up an accurate picture of the other person, and deep mirroring relies on deep and useful insight.
It's a completely different kind of interaction to superficial nodding and mirroring.
In my case, it's not that I perceive extroverts to be listening less, I just don't believe that in most cases they care about what I'm saying. Extroverts seem to me to live for the interaction, not for the content of the interaction. To me this is the essence of small talk - what is said isn't the point; it's the fact that words are being exchanged that gets and keeps the juices flowing.
Related to this, I have never believed that (at least extreme) extroverts understand introverts in any deep sense. They tend to see us as lacking something vital (this constant social exchange of what is often mostly meaningless information). Introverts do understand extroverts though - we know the interactions are feeding a need in them not unlike the need for a fix of a someone addicted to an addictive, although not enormously harmful, drug.
> Related to this, I have never believed that (at least extreme) extroverts understand introverts in any deep sense.
> Introverts do understand extroverts though - we know the interactions are feeding a need in them not unlike the need for a fix of a someone addicted to an addictive, although not enormously harmful, drug.
These sound like the nihilistic words of neither an introvert or an extrovert but a misanthrope. I wonder if you recognize the irony intrinsic in stereotyping people into the categorically questionable binary separation between introvert and extrovert in a manner that favors and gets revenge on those "pesky" extroverts, as it's exactly the kind of treatment that the wrong members (who usually wear it with undue pride) of the "extrovert" apply destructively and quite regularly.
My opinion is that the impulse to accurately model the behavior of people this broadly, belies an inability to accurately model any of it at all.
I don't see where you think I'm getting revenge on "pesky extroverts." I'm trying to understand them. And it's a useful model, e.g., to explain why for my wife's closest friend, Covid lockdown and social distancing caused enormous anxiety and even pain, whereas I experienced them as a serendipitous release from social overstimulation. He experience withdrawal; I experienced a haven. That doesn't mean I don't respect him, or like him, or that I want to change him. It just means I understand that he has a genuine need that I do not.
That's not to say I might not also be a misanthrope. You're not the first to venture such a diagnosis. I most certainly am not a nihilist, however.
> Extroverts seem to me to live for the interaction, not for the content of the interaction. To me this is the essence of small talk - what is said isn't the point; it's the fact that words are being exchanged that gets and keeps the juices flowing.
This is also true from my observation as well. I would go a step further and say there doesn't even need to be an exchange as some extroverts simply like to have words come from their mouth without regard to what is said in reply to those words (which is what you are saying but put a more exact way). To be clear this doesn't mean 'all' nothing is 'all'. But the pattern is what I have observed for sure.
> extroverts understand introverts in any deep sense. They tend to see us as lacking something vital (this constant social exchange of what is often mostly meaningless information). I
Again I agree. It seems to be accepted that the right way to be is to be social and to interact and if you don't do that you are 'off' in some way. ie 'Not normal'.
> Introverts do understand extroverts though - we know the interactions are feeding a need in them not unlike the need for a fix of a someone addicted to an addictive, although not enormously harmful, drug.
The reason I would say that introverts understand is because they are taking the time to observe and think and not so much what they will say in the interaction.
To illustrate the point take the experience of Dan Ariely:
"He spent the next three years in and out of hospitals and surgeries, and,
he writes, “since I had little else to do and badly needed distraction,
I began to notice and record things.” "
If you are talking you are less likely to notice than if you are not talking. (I am sure others can bring up apocryphal examples of the same point that I am making).
I wonder if there could be a corollary to this. I'm quite introverted and for some reason people seem to think I'm an excellent listener, when actually I'm actively ignoring them and wishing they'd just stop talking already. Come to think of it, I feel like I've seen a webcomic somewhere making this same observation.
The references in that paper lead to some interesting rabbit holes. Here's one (Zajenkowski et al.):
> "Grandiose and vulnerable narcissism have distinct personality profiles. Specifically, grandiose narcissism correlates positively with Extraversion and negatively with Neuroticism, whereas vulnerable narcissism showed a reverse associations with these traits. Additionally, both types of narcissism have common antagonistic core as they are negatively related to Agreeableness."
Being agreeable if one has to engage in small talk conversation is the best option. Probably not the time to get into the optimal technological approaches in your particular field, even if that's what you've been thinking about all day.
Making small talk is such a chore... and 'uncomfortable silence' doesn't need to be uncomfortable... and please, Lord, preserve us from the amateur therapist out to demonstrate what a good listener they are.
I'm an extrovert. In my youth, I tended to remember personal details about people without trying.
This went really weird places at times. People thought I was deeply interested in them because I happened to remember them.
My best guess: humans are designed for a little village or tribe of around 150 people and we really aren't that good at navigating social anything outside that circumstance.
Edit: I say that in part because I have read that Napoleon remembered personal details like that and it's part of why his troops were insanely loyal and would literally die for the man. I've read he liberally abused their assumption that he must deeply care because he could remember stuff about them.
Some people just remember such things without trying. It's other people who decide it means x, y or z when it doesn't.
The only thing I ever actually learnt in my school art lessons was when the older art teacher taught us how to nod while staring at someone's forehead to fake eye contact.
If you follow that back, it turns out that 'active listening' was introduced as a skill/approach for counselors and therapists in controlled settings with their patients. It might be best reserved for such situations.
Active listening is a key component in conflict resolution. Counter to popular opinion, active listening is not patiently keeping your mouth shut and trying to make the other think you are paying attention. Key word is active and it means asking clarifying questions and humbly testing your understanding of what they are saying.
Exercised as such, I find it is "best reserved" for just about every conversation you have.
First time I heard of active listening was in a corporate self-improvement class. People around me (the majority were extroverted bay area marketing/product folks) were mind blown. Many had never experienced anything like it. To me, it was just... listening. (Not saying this to self-promote, I had the same experience as them in other exercises.)
I do think there's a cultural distinction as well. Americans have a very intense small talk conversational culture. If you stop and think, it's a sign of weakness, so people are very good at filling the void if need be. In other cultures, speaking prematurely without anything good to say can be worse than saying nothing.
interesting the phrase dates to '57. The rise of modern pop-sci, bearing in mind Coué and Dale Carnegie had been plodding along since the early 1900s, I had assumed this was older. But, its surprisingly modern in some ways.
Active listening is a black art (black? white?) -because it can be overbearing done wrong. It really depends how its done. "I know, I know" can be like "stop schooling me" receiver side, when in fact sender side its 'Yes, I am here, I agree, I follow, I am listening'
Just saying "I know" or positive affirmations isn't active listening. Active listening is more about repeating back to the person what you heard, but in your own voice/words/understanding to constantly sync with the person you're listening to that you understood.
Aside from (as an extrovert) finding this helpful in understanding, as someone with ADHD it also stops my mind wandering from listening.
Done right, it deepens communication and a sense of feeling understood in a true sense.
Ah, facts. When your active listener says "correct" to show agreement and you feel like you're being schooled "correct: ten points to gryffendor" Uh no. I know I was correct, you aren't the judge of facts here..
No, most software engineers think salespeople are idiots because they have a bad habit of selling things to customers that don't exist yet, and in many cases cannot exist, and then you have to tell them, point blank, that they just lied to a customer to secure a sale and no solution to their problem with be coming. Salespeople generally only care about this quarter, if a chargeback or contract cancelation happens, that's a next quarter problem.
Example that hit the front page yesterday: https://jolynch.github.io/posts/distsys_shibboleths/ I've seen many of these "negative shibboleths" said by salespeople shoveling database products to secure the sale. They lied, they knew they lied, and they lied to worship at the altar of the almighty dollar.
I'd say that's more a problem with their incentives. When companies treat them like cannon fodder and cut them based on their monthly numbers, there's a huge incentive to do what it takes to make a sale. What's the worst that happens when you lie and make a sale? You get told not to do it again? Better than getting fired.
Since all you can see is the abstract and the references I wouldn't really call this anything I can comment on.
But just from what I can read seems very very stretched theory. How do you even say with confidence that a person is 100% intro/extrovert and from there all the theories built on top go down the drain.... Even the terms extrovert and introvert were hijacked by mainstream culture to mean outgoing and not outgoing people which don't paint the proper picture of human behavior in my opinion... That's just me though.
People like people who are like themselves, or are like who they want to be. It’s like docking a spaceship, you’ve got to reflect some of the other person, but not too much, and narrow into their groove. There you’ll find a relationship you can both work with.
> Furthermore, interaction partners assume that extraversion is positively associated with a greater ability to modify one’s self-presentation.
It seems like a can't-win situation for any extroverted people who are actually good listeners.